Using ‘Miyan-Tiyan’ & ‘Pakistani’ For Someone Mere Insult Or Serious Crime? Supreme Court’s Take

The Supreme Court ruled that using terms like "Miyan-Tiyan" or "Pakistani" may be offensive but does not violate Section 298 of the IPC.

The Supreme Court has said that calling someone "Miyan-Tiyan" is not a criminal offence under Section 298 of the IPC.

Source : Pixabay

In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court clarified that referring to someone as "Miyan-Tiyan" or "Pakistani" may be distasteful but does not constitute an offence under Section 298 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Section 298 in the IPC (Section 302 in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita), which pertains to deliberately hurting religious sentiments.

What Supreme Court Said

A bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma reviewed an appeal against the Jharkhand High Court’s decision, which had refused to discharge the accused from the case. As per legal news website Live Law, the Supreme Court said: “The appellant is accused of hurting the religious feelings of the informant by calling him ‘Miyan-Tiyan’ and ‘Pakistani.’ Undoubtedly, the statements made are in poor taste. However, it does not amount to hurting the religious sentiments of the informant,” the court said.

What Was The Case

The case stemmed from an FIR lodged by an Urdu translator and acting clerk (Right to Information) working in the sub-divisional office, Chas. According to the complaint, when the informant approached the accused regarding an RTI-related matter, he was allegedly abused based on his religion and faced criminal force to prevent him from carrying out his official duties, reported Live Law.

Following the complaint, charges were framed against the accused under IPC Sections 353 (assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from duty), 298 (hurting religious sentiments), and 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace).

Key Observations By Supreme Court

Upon examining the case, the Supreme Court found no substantial grounds to support the allegations. The bench noted that the complaint failed to establish the elements required for the offences charged. According to the Supreme Court, there was no evidence of assault or use of criminal force by the accused, ruling out a case under Section 353 IPC.

The appellant’s statements, while inappropriate, did not meet the threshold for an offense under Section 298 IPC, the Bench said. The Court further dismissed charges under Section 504 IPC, stating that there was no act by the accused that could have incited a breach of peace.

Senior advocate A Sirajudeen, along with lawyers Arya Kumari, Divya Singhvi, Pardeep Gupta, Parinav Gupta, Mansi Gupta, and Vipin Gupta, represented the accused in court. On behalf of the state, standing counsel Vishnu Sharma and advocates Shiv Ram Sharma, Tulika Mukherjee, Venkat Narayan, and Beenu Sharma presented their arguments.